If you don't know who Albert Camus was, then you are in for a real treat.
His only entry into TheAnarchistLibrary.org is reproduced below.
November 30, 1946 Toward Dialogue
Yes, we must raise our voices.
Up to this point, I have refrained from appealing to emotion.
We are being torn apart by a logic of history which we have elaborated in every detail — a net which threatens to strangle us.
It is not emotion which can cut through the web of a logic which has gone to irrational lengths, but only reason which can meet logic on its own ground.
But I should not want to leave the impression... that any program for the future can get along without our powers of love and indignation.
I am well aware that it takes a powerful prime mover to get men into motion and that it is hard to throw one’s self into a struggle whose objectives are so modest and where hope has only a rational basis — and hardly even that.
But the problem is not how to carry men away; it is essential, on the contrary, that they not be carried away but rather that they be made to understand clearly what they are doing.
To save what can be saved so as to open up some kind of future — that is the prime mover, the passion and the sacrifice that is required.
It demands only that we reflect and then decide, clearly, whether humanity’s lot must be made still more miserable in order to achieve far-off and shadowy ends, whether we should accept a world bristling with arms where brother kills brother; or whether, on the contrary, we should avoid bloodshed and misery as much as possible so that we give a chance for survival to later generations better equipped than we are.
For my part, I am fairly sure that I have made the choice.
And, having chosen, I think that I must speak out, that I must state that I will never again be one of those, whoever they be, who compromise with murder, and that I must take the consequences of such a decision.
The thing is done, and that is as far as I can go at present....
However, I want to make clear the spirit in which this article is written.
We are asked to love or to hate such and such a country and such and such a people.
But some of us feel too strongly our common humanity to make such a choice.
Those who really love the Russian people, in gratitude for what they have never ceased to be — that world leaven which Tolstoy and Gorky speak of — do not wish for them success in power politics, but rather want to spare them, after the ordeals of the past, a new and even more terrible bloodletting.
So, too, with the American people, and with the peoples of unhappy Europe.
This is the kind of elementary truth we are likely to forget amidst the furious passions of our time.
Yes, it is fear and silence and the spiritual isolation they cause that must be fought today.
And it is sociability and the universal intercommunication of men that must be defended.
Slavery, injustice, and lies destroy this intercourse and forbid this sociability; and so we must reject them.
But these evils are today the very stuff of history, so that many consider them necessary evils.
It is true that we cannot “escape history,” since we are in it up to our necks.
But one may propose to fight within history to preserve from history that part of man which is not its proper province.
That is all I have to say here.
The “point” of this article may be summed up as follows:
Modern nations are driven by powerful forces along the roads of power and domination.
I will not say that these forces should be furthered or that they should be obstructed.
They hardly need our help and, for the moment, they laugh at attempts to hinder them.
They will, then, continue.
But I will ask only this simple question:
What if these forces wind up in a dead end, what if that logic of history on which so many now rely turns out to be a will o’ the wisp?
What if, despite two or three world wars, despite the sacrifice of several generations and a whole system of values, our grandchildren — supposing they survive — find themselves no closer to a world society?
It may well be that the survivors of such an experience will be too weak to understand their own sufferings.
Since these forces are working themselves out and since it is inevitable that they continue to do so, there is no reason why some of us should not take on the job of keeping alive, through the apocalyptic historical vista that stretches before us, a modest thoughtfulness which, without pretending to solve everything, will constantly be prepared to give some human meaning to everyday life.
The essential thing is that people should carefully weight the price they must pay....
All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice.
After that, we can distinguish those who accept the consequences of being murderers themselves or the accomplices of murderers, and those who refuse to do so with all their force and being.
Since this terrible dividing line does actually exist, it will be a gain if it be clearly marked.
Over the expanse of five continents throughout the coming years an endless strugle is going to be pursued between violence and friendly persuasion, a struggle in which, granted, the former has a thousand times the chances of success than that of the latter.
But I have always held that, if he who bases his hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circumstances is a coward.
And henceforth, the only honorable course will be to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions.
